So, BibleStudent, you think that there is no scientific, empirical evidence for evolution. However, every other field of science supports evolution, from geology to immunology. Are these other fields also without scientific, empirical evidence?
Why do you think all other sciences support evolution if it is completely wrong? Do you seriously believe that there is a conspiracy among working scientists to cover up the fact that evolution is false? Are people just making up stuff and somehow other scientists accept it and even give prizes for this fake science? What do you honestly think is happening?
You say you want to see an experiment that shows actual evolution from a lizard to a snake. Well, so does every biologist on the planet, but guess what?
It may never be possible to do that particular experiment. Does that mean that all the other evidence for evolution has been invalidated?
[1]Evolution has passed every challenge that science can throw at it. If it had failed even one of the thousands of tests, experiments, whatever you want to call them,
[2], then scientists would have long ago abandoned it and we would not even be having this conversation. Evolution would have been thrown into the dustbin of history along with phrenology, alchemy and astrology-- stuff that used to be considered scientific until falsified.
Why do you think that scientists have been unable to falsify evolution, if it is indeed false?
When you cannot falsify something, in science you act as though it is true and go on from there. If when you act as though the thing is true and your applications work as if the thing is true, again, you continue to act as though it is true. And so on. After 150 years of acting as though evolution was true, and no signs of it being false, it does not even matter if nobody has yet designed the exact experiment demonstrating evolutionary mechanisms happening in real time. Evolution works, whether someone is ever able to do that experiment or not.
I hope that you realize that science is a piecemeal enterprise where there is never a complete answer to a question. But when you have a theory that gives enough of the pieces to make predictions that are accurate, and to develop new fields of science based on the theory, wouldn't that indicate that the theory was fact?
I am really interested in this discussion, because as a college professor, I increasingly encounter students with this anti-evolution perspective. The anti-evolution stuff seems pretty new, like only 20 years old. My colleagues in other fields are dealing with it as well.
[3]When I was studying earth science years ago, we students rarely challenged the professors on things that were considered settled by the mountains of evidence, like the age of the earth and the theory of evolution.
What is strange is that nowadays the evidence is so overwhelming compared to 100, 50 or even 25 years ago, that in order to maintain the anti-evolution stance, there has to be some real...I don't even know what to call it. Willful blindness? I am not going to be negative or snarky here, because I want to understand where our anti-evolution students are coming, so we can better reach them with real science.
